ReviewDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Prenatal Use of Exome Sequencing and Chromosomal Microarray Analysis: Indications, Interpretation, and Gene Selection Strategies.
Review in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As genomic technologies continue to evolve, understanding the scope and limitations of available prenatal testing methods is essential for accurate diagnosis and counseling. Chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) and exome sequencing (ES) have emerged as key complementary tools in this setting. This review aims to outline the technical principles underlying CMA and ES and to compare their diagnostic capabilities and limitations in the prenatal context. This narrative review includes a literature search, with additional relevant articles identified through manual screening of reference lists from key publications and review articles. Due to the narrative nature of this review, no formal inclusion or exclusion criteria or quantitative synthesis were applied. Special focus was placed on clinical indications, variant interpretation challenges-particularly uncertain and incidental findings-gene selection strategies, and implications for prenatal counseling. Indications for both tests have increased over time but differ substantially. CMA is becoming the standard prenatal genetic test, particularly in the evaluation of fetal structural anomalies, whereas ES remains restricted to selected fetal structural anomalies. Interpretation of molecular results remains a major challenge, especially for variants of uncertain significance and incidental findings with unclear or unexpected implications for pregnancy management. For ES, agnostic gene selection strategies showed superior diagnostic yield compared with phenotype-driven approaches, likely reflecting the limited characterization of prenatal phenotypes. Continuous refinement of clinical indications, bioinformatic pipelines, variant classification criteria, and gene curation strategies is critical to ensure that prenatal results are accurate and clinically meaningful. Together, ongoing improvements in technology, interpretation, and clinical integration have the potential to transform prenatal genomics into a more precise, informed, and ethically responsible field.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.